Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Vinod with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 33 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C., P.S, Malawan, district Etah.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged on 6.3.2006 at 12.15 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 6.3.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. It is alleged that seven or eight persons committed the alleged offence in which the applicant and three other co-accused are named in F.I.R. It is said that the first informant, the deceased Meghraj, the deceased Ram Nath, Tinchu and Smt. Saroj were going in a truck to Delhi to participate in a marriage function. At about 11.30 a.m. one Maruti car came from the back side and by overtaking intercepted the truck, from that Maruti car the applicant and other co-accused Jaleshwar, co-accused Balister, co-accused Vishram came out and three or four miscreants who came from motorcycles on the place of occurrence, they discharged shots indiscriminately consequently deceased Ramnath and deceased Meghraj died instantaneously. THE injured Vinod and Hira Singh received injuries. According to post mortem examination report the deceased Ramnath had received 13 ante mortem injuries in which injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were caused by the firm arm and injury Nos. 11, 12 and 13 were lacerated wounds and the deceased Meghraj had received seven ante mortem injuries in which injury No. 1 to 6 were caused by fire arm and injury No. 7 was abrasion. THE medical examination report of injured Hira Singh shows that he had received three injuries caused by fire arm. Heard Sri G. C. Saxena and Sri N. K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the presence of the witnesses, first informant and other witnesses at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful. The alleged offence was committed by some unknown persons and it was not possible to sustain the injuries in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The F.I.R. is ante timed, it was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest report. The applicant is residing at the distance of 150 kilometers from the alleged place of occurrence, he is not known to the witnesses, his identification was refused. It is also surprising that in the present case neither driver nor cleaner of the truck received any injury. The applicant is innocent, he may be released on bail.
(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged occurrence has taken place in broad day light, the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the alleged offence has been committed on a road after stopping the truck. The offence was committed in a pre-planed manner. The applicant is having criminal background. Co-accused Jaleshwar is still absconding and extending threats to the witnesses. IN the present case two persons have lost life and two persons sustained injuries. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. IN case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence. Considering the facts, circumstance of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and considering the active role of the applicant causing the fire arm injuries and the gravity of the offence which is too much because in this case two persons have lost life and two persons sustained injuries and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.;